Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Jeff Buchanan]

It's totally going to work this time you guys...

Heh .....

[WM Wolverine]

Sugar is addictive, especially the processed sugar they put in foods and has very minimal nutritional value. This new label is a decent first step at separating good carbs from bad carbs (sugar) which have the same amount of calories but the latter has none of the nutritional value that good carbs do.

[hack]

Well done presenting arguments. I think, in the end, if you want to assert that people should take personal responsibility, you have to have a population that has the ability to do that, as well as the time to do that. Essentially that viewpoint amounts to saying that one must read the fine print at each and every opportunity. The time that would take and the inefficiency it would introduce would be a disaster for economic growth. That's in nobody's interests.

[iam416]

So then it follows that you'd argue that the government's rule in reducing the amount of cigarette smoking through "warnings" have had no public health benefit and they are irrelevant.

You would be wrong so, I doubt you'll purse that.

I shouldn't say irrelevant. I should say minimally impactful. I don't think people spend much time reading labels. That said, hack's point about efficiency is fair for the small portion of folks who do.

The warning labels on cigarettes told consumers nothing they didn't already know or should know. What they did was provide tobacco companies litigation cover. It's much harder to win a tobacco lawsuit (to the extent they are still going on) if you started smoking after the warnings mandate.

What changed about tobacco was a total, gradual societal shift. The ban on TV advertising. The remarkable efforts by public interest groups to change attitudes about tobacco. It was a cultural shift in perception.

To illustrate, think of all the items you buy that have warnings. How many of those do you actually pay attention to? Seriously. The warning is prophylactic for the manufacturer. It doesn't change consumer behavior for a multitude of products. Further, think about the items that can be procured w/o a warning that we all fucking know are dangerous -- like, say, heroin.

So, at the end of the day I just don't see much in it. They're nice to lower transaction costs, I guess, for the segment of the population that wants to know. But if you want to change behavior significantly then it has to be a real cultural shift.

that would be the Krebb's Cycle. It's been around for about a century and hasn't been shown to be wrong in that time frame.

I reckon the Krebb's Cycle has been around for as long as humans have existed. It's been discovered and understood in the past century. Heh.

[Hannibal]

Jesus this election...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/281463-trump-sanders-whip-up-debate-buzz

Trump and Sanders whip up debate buzz

An off-the-cuff remark from Donald Trump to a late-night talk show host might snowball into the blockbuster event of the 2016 presidential primary cycle.

Trump, the de facto Republican presidential nominee, and Bernie Sanders, the second-place Democratic hopeful, are flirting with the idea of staging a shocking spectacle in a historically unpredictable presidential race: a cross-party primary debate between two outsider candidates who have shaken up the political establishment.

Both candidates say they’re interested in a debate that Trump has predicted would draw huge ratings.

“This would be a complete circus,” said Democratic media strategist Brad Bannon. “To me, it shows more than anything else that American politics has become entertainment.”




Sen. Barbara BoxerBarbara Boxer, said in an interview with Julie Mason on Sirius XM that she would tune in. “I think it’d be fun to watch,” she said.

Trump says his campaign has already been contacted by several networks eager to get in on the action.
He is already predicting a hefty price tag for anyone advertising during the event, with proceeds going to charity. Trump priced the debate would generate somewhere between $10 million and $15 million, and he suggested a women’s health organization should receive the money.
The "Young Turks" online news outlet, where Sanders has appeared, offered $1 million to charity to stage the event, Politico reported.
Trump and Sanders agree the debate should take place in a massive arena, likely in California, where both parties will hold primary contests on June 7.

Sanders channeled his inner Trump in proposing “the biggest stadium possible” for the debate.
The Vermont senator thanked host Jimmy Kimmel for giving the idea life when he appeared on the "Jimmy Kimmel Live" Thursday night.
"You made it possible for us to have a very interesting debate about two guys who look at the world very, very differently," he said.
Sanders also said that ABC, Kimmel's network, had reached out to the campaign about putting on the debate. At the beginning of his show, Kimmel offered to moderate.
Just the possibility of a Trump-Sanders debate set the media sphere ablaze.

Political watchers are clearly excited by the potential showdown between a world-famous billionaire reality TV star and a self-identified democratic socialist whose long-shot presidential bid has transformed him from a back-bench senator to a pop culture phenomenon.

The proposal actually began as a joke between Trump and Kimmel, but it quickly gained steam from there.
Ahead of Trump’s appearance on “Jimmy Kimmel Live” Wednesday night, the Sanders camp was given the chance to submit a question for the host to ask Trump and chose to challenge him to the debate.
Trump told Kimmel in response that he’d be open to debating Sanders.

A Trump campaign official described the remarks to The Hill on Thursday morning as “tongue-in-cheek.”

But Trump appears to have underestimated Sanders’s seriousness about the notion, and Sanders quickly responded on Twitter during the broadcast, saying "Game on."

Sanders has little to lose in his primary contest and badly needs a game-changing event. He has been unable to persuade Clinton to agree to another debate before the California primary on June 7.

Sanders pounced on the opening Trump gave him, and the Republican's remarks soon took on a life of their own.

Trump had fun with it at press conference in North Dakota, exhibiting his trademark swagger.

“The problem with debating Bernie is that he’d lose,” Trump remarked.
But Trump passed on an opportunity to keep the conversation going during Sanders's appearance on Kimmel's show; he instead submitted a question about Sanders running as an independent if party leaders "steal" the nomination from him.

A debate between the two would come at a strange time in the presidential cycle.

Clinton could potentially secure the Democratic nomination on June 7, but a Trump-Sanders debate could potentially drain that accomplishment of a lot of excitement.
She brushed off the potential debate as a joke when asked about it Thursday.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Hillary getting ripped apart. 5 Dems on MSNBC sitting around and basically saying straight out that Hillary Clinton is lying

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/mika-it-feels-like-clinton-is-lying-straight-out-693313091808

"Never speak of the Secretary's personal email system again"

[SeattleLionsFan]

I shouldn't say irrelevant. I should say minimally impactful. I don't think people spend much time reading labels. That said, hack's point about efficiency is fair for the small portion of folks who do.

The warning labels on cigarettes told consumers nothing they didn't already know or should know. What they did was provide tobacco companies litigation cover. It's much harder to win a tobacco lawsuit (to the extent they are still going on) if you started smoking after the warnings mandate.

What changed about tobacco was a total, gradual societal shift. The ban on TV advertising. The remarkable efforts by public interest groups to change attitudes about tobacco. It was a cultural shift in perception.

To illustrate, think of all the items you buy that have warnings. How many of those do you actually pay attention to? Seriously. The warning is prophylactic for the manufacturer. It doesn't change consumer behavior for a multitude of products. Further, think about the items that can be procured w/o a warning that we all fucking know are dangerous -- like, say, heroin.

So, at the end of the day I just don't see much in it. They're nice to lower transaction costs, I guess, for the segment of the population that wants to know. But if you want to change behavior significantly then it has to be a real cultural shift.

The "added sugar" labeling isn't about warnings, it's about information. Companies make food and know what they put in it. There is -0- reason that information should be withheld from the people actually consuming it.

As far as fatties not being as awesome as Hannibal, that's a stupid argument. The food system is so screwed up in America that it is nearly impossible to know if something is nutritious or not. For example Cracklings Oat Bran, an adult bran cereal, has 15 grams of added sugar. How is a consumer supposed to know that there is that much refined sugar in a friggin bran cereal? http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/su...-high-in-sugar

Last, as a guy who has worked hard to lose more than a 100 lbs, my experience has been that getting rid of processed food is much more important than a hyper focus on calories for me. I chalk that up to things like companies adding a ton of sugar to food and exaggerating health benefits.

[SeattleLionsFan]

I will never get the Clinton's (and many politicians) penchant for secrecy. Who gives a shit what you email?

[Dr. Strangelove]

The vast majority of voters don't trust her and shit like this is a good part why. She's been flat out lying for years about her email while at DOS

[Hannibal]

I will never get the Clinton's (and many politicians) penchant for secrecy. Who gives a shit what you email?

If you use a personal server, then your e-mails can't be acquired via the Freedom of Information Act.

[entropy]

Good luck with that.

The best that you could ever accomplish is adjusting people's rates based on their body fat percentage. The moral outrage over this would be huge.

we are self insured.. and we have several things we do a year to reduce our deductible:

- annual health exam
- bi annual dental exams
- low blood pressure or reducing blood pressure by x%
- Body fat % or reducing body fat% by x% (note to Talent.. this isn't a BMI chart, but rather an actual measurement)
- steps
- certain exams by age/risk category
- and a few more

it's not that complicated to start people down the right path. And there are more an more companies moving in this direction.

You are not forcing people to change, just rewarding those who do.

[entropy]

btw.. we do this today with smoking or cancer... or actually, we punish and increase costs.

[froot loops]

The "added sugar" labeling isn't about warnings, it's about information. Companies make food and know what they put in it. There is -0- reason that information should be withheld from the people actually consuming it.

As far as fatties not being as awesome as Hannibal, that's a stupid argument. The food system is so screwed up in America that it is nearly impossible to know if something is nutritious or not. For example Cracklings Oat Bran, an adult bran cereal, has 15 grams of added sugar. How is a consumer supposed to know that there is that much refined sugar in a friggin bran cereal? http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/su...-high-in-sugar

Last, as a guy who has worked hard to lose more than a 100 lbs, my experience has been that getting rid of processed food is much more important than a hyper focus on calories for me. I chalk that up to things like companies adding a ton of sugar to food and exaggerating health benefits.

Excellent post

[Mike]

Concur. More information for consumers to make informed decisions is never a bad thing, IMO.

[Wild Hoss]

I tend to agree with entropy. I really don?t like the idea of giving corporations even more control over how we live, but unless you can afford to front your medical costs yourself you don?t have a choice except for insurance. At that point you have ceded control to one entity or another, and it becomes an academic exercise.

I think its clear that cost and demand are overwhelming the current system. Of the two, individuals can only directly influence the latter, and by doing so, indirectly influence the former. Healthier people create less demand for care, less demand for care should, eventually, reduce costs. Theoretically. To reduce demand, you can incentivize people to be healthier.

That said, there has to be balance. I think back to what Talent said about his BMI....he could always be the pencil-necked geek we know and love, but be subjected to high premiums because he doesn?t meet the BMI % set by some suit in a corner office. One can certainly see scenarios that eventually develop where consumers are held to rigid standards, but still paying crippling premiums. That would be quite profitable...

So some amalgamation of the current failing paradigm, and more individual premium scaling. No problem!